Astronomy Talk :: View topic - Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

Astronomy Talk
Astronomy Talk

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Every action has equal & opposite reaction?
Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next

Astronomy Talk Forum Index -> Astronomy Talk

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Sanny
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:17 pm Post subject: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws. Will it be true incase of astronomical Objects? Two balls collide then they go away in opposite direction. ------------------------------------------------------ 1. A star Collides with a Black hole? Will the Black hole eat that star or the Black Hole will get thrown away? Do black hole remain stationary or they revolve arround in sky? A ball Collides with a Wall it bounce back. -------------------------------------------------------------- A star at Edge of Universe gets Collide with the Wall of Universe. That is it strikes the boundry of Universe. Will it bounce Back? If I consider our Universe as a Ballon with stars as its air. And this Ballon is expanding by someone filling inside air of stars. What will happen when the Universe Brust. Will we see a bigger Universe? Bye Sanny

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Paul Cardinale
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

On Jun 26, 11:17 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws.

Wrong. When one object exerts a force on a second object, the second
object exerts a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction upon
the first.

Paul Cardinale

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

dlzc
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:41 pm Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

Dear Sanny:

On Jun 26, 11:17 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as
per Newton Laws.

Will it be true incase of astronomical Objects?

Two balls collide then they go away in opposite
direction.

Two eggs collide, they do not. But momentum is conserved either way.

Quote:

------------------------------------------------------

1. A star Collides with a Black hole?

A black hole is not a hard surface... "collide" is the wrong word.

Quote:

Will the Black hole eat that star or the Black
Hole will get thrown away?

They will "stick", just like most reactions in Nature.

Quote:

Do black hole remain stationary or they
revolve arround in sky?

There are many black hole candidates that we can see with our
instrumentation, where the black hole strips matter away from a
companion star. It could be quick (as you describe), or it could be
slow.

Quote:

A ball Collides with a Wall it bounce back.

An egg collides with a wall, it does not.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------

A star at Edge of Universe gets Collide
with the Wall of Universe.

No theories that describe what we see today have a "Wall" as a
boundary. In teh balloon analogy, there is no wall on the surface of
the balloon. The balloon's surface represents all of space. The
surface of the balloon represents a slice of *now*.

Quote:

That is it strikes the boundry of Universe. Will
it bounce Back?

No, it would be infinitely rigid and anything that touched it would be
instantly destroyed.

Quote:

If I consider our Universe as a Ballon with
stars as its air. And this Ballon is expanding
by someone filling inside air of stars. What will
happen when the Universe Brust. Will we see
a bigger Universe?

It bursts into time axis. So no.

David A. Smith

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

dlzc
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:45 pm Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

Dear Pmb:

On Jun 26, 11:36 am, "Pmb" <some...@somewhere.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Sanny" <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:b1a95907-e9e8-4c9a-a31b-8e33d57d89dc@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

Every action has equal & opposite reaction?
as per Newton Laws.

Not always. Newton stated that before the theory
of electrodynamics was in place. This law does
not hold in EM.

Got an example? A magnet pulls on a paperclip, the paperclip pulls on
the magnet too. Light is transmitted between an emitter and receiver,
the net interaction maintains "conservation of momentum"...

David A. Smith

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Spaceman
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:26 pm Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

Sanny wrote:

Quote:

Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws.

Will it be true incase of astronomical Objects?

Two balls collide then they go away in opposite direction.
------------------------------------------------------

1. A star Collides with a Black hole? Will the Black hole eat that
star or the Black Hole will get thrown away?

Depends on the size and density of both.
:)

Quote:

Do black hole remain stationary or they revolve arround in sky?

They are at the center of galaxies mostly and are moving with the entire
galaxy in it's orbit around the universe.

Quote:

A ball Collides with a Wall it bounce back.
--------------------------------------------------------------

A star at Edge of Universe gets Collide with the Wall of Universe.
That is it strikes the boundry of Universe. Will it bounce Back?

What boundary?
What we see is not a physical boundary or wall.
It is simply the limited distance light can travel.

Quote:

If I consider our Universe as a Ballon with stars as its air. And this
Ballon is expanding by someone filling inside air of stars. What will
happen when the Universe Brust. Will we see a bigger Universe?

It has no surface to burst.
outside of expanding space is just more space or it could
not expand at all.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Spaceman
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:30 pm Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

Paul Cardinale wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 26, 11:17 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws.

Wrong. When one object exerts a force on a second object, the second
object exerts a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction upon
the first.

hmm?
That is the same thing with extra wording.
C,mon Paul,
stop that.
Making simple stuff complex is not how people
learn it better.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Pmb
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

"Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1a95907-e9e8-4c9a-a31b-8e33d57d89dc@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws.

Not always. Newton stated that before the theory of electrodynamics was in
place. This law does not hold in EM.

Pete

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Spaceman
Guest

Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:47 pm Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

Pmb wrote:

Quote:

"Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b1a95907-e9e8-4c9a-a31b-8e33d57d89dc@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Every action has equal & opposite reaction? as per Newton Laws.

Not always. Newton stated that before the theory of electrodynamics
was in place. This law does not hold in EM.

It does to.
If you use it correctly, meaning you treat each and every electron
seperately.
but of course. that is crazy math, so you use the quicker methods.
But that does not prove Newton was wrong at all.
:)

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Sam Wormley
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:22 am Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

Pmb wrote:

Quote:

Pete... I'm having trouble with your statement. Does not conservation
of momentum apply in both emission abs absorption of photons, virtual
or otherwise?

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

hhc314@yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:00 am Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

On Jun 26, 4:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

Quote:

John wrote:

black holes do not exist

Observation of Sag A, dark binary companions, etc. are
consistent with the concept of black holes and rule out
alternative explanations.

Just because YOU don't like the concept of back holes, John,
doesn't mean they don't occur in nature... if fact, the
more we look, the more it appears that black holes are
a significant player in the history and evolution of the
universe, galactic clusters and galaxies.

-Sam Wormley
http://edu-observatory.org/eo/cosmology.html

Sam, given your many excellent posts, I hate to disagree with you on
this onem but I must.

Black holes are currently simply intelectual and mathematical
abstractions created to explain observations that physics and
astronomy are incapable of explaining in terms of demonstrably true
physical theory. Black holes lurk in the same general region with
Fourier and Hamiltonian generalized coordinates, or Laplace
transforms, and to some extent Quantum theory. Yes, all of these
techniques are are very useful in a number of limited areas for
explaining observed reults, but when you ask them to make some new
prediction, as is required in physics, the results become rather
mixed.

It took many years for even Special Relativity to be proven correct,
and all bets are still out in the very conservative science community
over Black Holes, Gravitational Lenses, and even Global Warming. In
hard sciences like physics, acceptance of a theory to become
established scientific appears to range from 50 to 100 years, some
will be proven correct, other will be dismissed. That's simply the
way that science operates, because scientific fact is not established
by a survey of prevailing popular opinion.

Fifty years ago I highly doubted there were such things as tectonic
plates, which driftt around on ocean of Magma, but this thory seems to
be now scientifically validated as fact, although it took state-of-the-
art measurement instrumentation to do so. 50 years ago, I thought that
coherrent optical radiation was impossible, but today it is a day-to-
day fact. Likely, the two vents that impressed me most were Atomic
Energy and in 1969, man setting foot on the moon. Physics revealed
that both of these were possible, but once the science was established
as factual, it took one heck of a lot of practical engineering to
accomplish both.

Perhaps somewhere during the next 100 or so years, the concept of
Black Holes could be established to be scientific fact, but to date
his hasn't been, and like the the Geodetic Syncline theory, it could
go the same as has had the Luminiferous Aether thories.

Harry C.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

John
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:05 am Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

Sanny wrote:

Quote:

Rock covers paper,
Scissors cut paper,
Rock breaks scissors,

black holes do not exist

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

G=EMC^2 Glazier
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:09 am Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

I can easily prove a rocket moves because it is being 'pushed" Oh ya Bert

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Daryl McCullough
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:09 am Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

Pmb says...

Quote:

What do you mean? The modern way to interpret "equal and opposite
reactions" is in terms of conservation of momentum, and that certainly
holds in E&M: There is momentum in particles, and also in the
electromagnetic field. The sum of the two is a constant.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Sam Wormley
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:47 am Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

John wrote:

Quote:

black holes do not exist

Observation of Sag A, dark binary companions, etc. are
consistent with the concept of black holes and rule out
alternative explanations.

Just because YOU don't like the concept of back holes, John,
doesn't mean they don't occur in nature... if fact, the
more we look, the more it appears that black holes are
a significant player in the history and evolution of the
universe, galactic clusters and galaxies.

-Sam Wormley
http://edu-observatory.org/eo/cosmology.html

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Eric Gisse
Guest

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:04 am Post subject: Re: Every action has equal & opposite reaction?

On Jun 26, 5:00 pm, "hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Jun 26, 4:47 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:

John wrote:

black holes do not exist

Observation of Sag A, dark binary companions, etc. are
consistent with the concept of black holes and rule out
alternative explanations.

Just because YOU don't like the concept of back holes, John,
doesn't mean they don't occur in nature... if fact, the
more we look, the more it appears that black holes are
a significant player in the history and evolution of the
universe, galactic clusters and galaxies.

-Sam Wormley
http://edu-observatory.org/eo/cosmology.html

Sam, given your many excellent posts, I hate to disagree with you on
this onem but I must.

Black holes are currently simply intelectual and mathematical
abstractions created to explain observations that physics and
astronomy are incapable of explaining in terms of demonstrably true
physical theory. Black holes lurk in the same general region with
Fourier and Hamiltonian generalized coordinates, or Laplace
transforms, and to some extent Quantum theory. Yes, all of these
techniques are are very useful in a number of limited areas for
explaining observed reults, but when you ask them to make some new
prediction, as is required in physics, the results become rather
mixed.

Harry, you should know better.

Things like generalized coordinates and integral transformations are
_mathematical abstractions_ that nobody [should!] seriously treat as
anything more than handy tools for doing physics.

Black holes, on the other hand, are entirely different. Put aside
their practical observational fact, and instead focus on the
theoretical facts that they are actual physical constructs which are
actual predictions from a physical theory.

Quote:

It took many years for even Special Relativity to be proven correct,

Are you speaking from some point in the future where the scientific
method has "proof" in one of its' steps?

Quote:

and all bets are still out in the very conservative science community
over Black Holes, Gravitational Lenses, and even Global Warming. In

Hell no.

Gravitational lensing is observational fact that has revolutionized
astronomy and cosmology, which is a field unto itself now.

Black holes are, as far as my reading in the literature suggests,
essentially observational fact.

Global warming is another beast entirely and by merely forming an
opinion on it I am flirting with creating a thousand post thread
arguing about it.

The scientific community _is_ conservative but things like Sgr A* and
Cygnus X-1 sortof gave things a push. Plus it helps that black holes
are the only thing in our theoretical toolbox which lets us shortcut
the Eddington luminosity, which quasars/blasars surpass by a good
margin. What I mean is that black holes are the only thing we know of
that is powerful enough to explain the high energy dynamics of
quasars.

Quote:

hard sciences like physics, acceptance of a theory to become
established scientific appears to range from 50 to 100 years, some
will be proven correct, other will be dismissed. That's simply the
way that science operates, because scientific fact is not established
by a survey of prevailing popular opinion.

General relativity is 1916, and has been passing tests from day one.

Though to be fair GR only became /really/ testable and useful in the
last forty years.

Quote:

Fifty years ago I highly doubted there were such things as tectonic
plates, which driftt around on ocean of Magma, but this thory seems to
be now scientifically validated as fact, although it took state-of-the-
art measurement instrumentation to do so. 50 years ago, I thought that
coherrent optical radiation was impossible, but today it is a day-to-
day fact. Likely, the two vents that impressed me most were Atomic
Energy and in 1969, man setting foot on the moon. Physics revealed
that both of these were possible, but once the science was established
as factual, it took one heck of a lot of practical engineering to
accomplish both.

Perhaps somewhere during the next 100 or so years, the concept of
Black Holes could be established to be scientific fact, but to date
his hasn't been, and like the the Geodetic Syncline theory, it could
go the same as has had the Luminiferous Aether thories.

Could be, but I doubt it.

Anybody who wants to usurp general relativity's version of Ye Olde
Black Hole has a few large hurdles to overcome and quite a few things
to match.

General relativity doesn't predict black holes on a whim - they are
[under certain conditions] the general fate of a fair amount of setups
from exotic binary configurations and mergers. You have to understand
that the existence of black holes is an integral part of general
relativity, and to one extent or another, quantum mechanics as well.

As an example of things that have to be matched if black holes are to
be tossed, the exterior gravitational fields of black holes are
identical to the fields of planets and stars under general relativity
- vacuum is vacuum. Those fields have been well-tested in the weak
field limit in tests within the solar system.

The strong fields /around/ the black hole replacements have to match
observation as well.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606076

Executive summary: The emission lines of some heavily ionized atom
were used to determine the most probable last stable orbit for massive
particles. That orbit corresponds to a near-extreme Kerr hole that has
the nearly maximum allowed spin per unit mass ratio. Which is really,
really cool.

Then someone has to be /really clever/ and find a convincing
explanation for why the entities we deem black holes show no expected
signs of matter that we watch fall in were it falling in and impacting
a massive body. Then the cleverness must continue - take the Milky
Way's central black hole located at Sgr A*, which judging from the way
stars whip around it like a flail, masses at 4 million solar masses -
give or take a million.

Standard theory says that the only thing holding a neutron star
against gravity's infinite embrace is the neutron degeneracy pressure
which keeps the whole construct together.

Though what actually comprises a neutron star's interior is a
crapshoot, the basic observational result is that you have a construct
which is already teetering near the edge of infinity. Observation,
more or less, supports the assertion that you aren't going to find any
neutron stars past ~ 1.5 solar masses. A Schwarzschild radius for 1.5
solar masses is something like 4.5 km, while the diameter of a neutron
star is like 15km.

My basic point is you can't squeeze them much more without pushing
stuff through the gravitational one way door. Extend that to 4 million
_invisible_ solar masses and you see what hurdles alternative theories
have to go through.

This page is good reading, and is my primary reference for Sgr A*:

http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC/res_s2orbit.php?lang=en

The star that makes all this possible has a semi-major axis of 5.5
light days - that's like 1000 AU, or roughly 6 times further out than
the termination shock for the Sun - with an eccentricity of 0.87. That
makes its' closes approach at 17.16 light hours, and for reference
Pluto hangs out at like 5.5 light hours.

This stuff isn't voodoo anymore. There is competent observation
backing it, and it can't be wished away.

Quote:

Harry C.

Ads

Advertising
Sponsor

Display posts from previous:

	Astronomy Talk Forum Index -> Astronomy Talk	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Australian Debt Consolidation Experts
medical insurance
Wedding Website
Escorts Incalll and Outcall in Modena, Bologna, Parma, Ferrara, Forli' ...
Swingers in Europe
Biotechnology Industry
cheap mortgages
Make Your Own Website
Cheap calls to Poland

Long island Cleaning service
black mold
UK Swingers Genuine Contacts Site
Sex Links
cleaning supplies
Free Porn
Vacuum Parts